Benchmark: Get and set in typed array vs simple array

Script Preparation code:

var size = 1024;
var typedArray = new Int32Array(size);
var array = [];

for(let i = 0; i < size; i++) {
  typedArray[i] = Math.random();
  array[i] = Math.random();
}

Tests:

typedArray
const i = Math.round(Math.random() * size); typedArray[i] = typedArray[i] * 2;
array
const i = Math.round(Math.random() * size); array[i] = array[i] * 2;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
typedArray
array

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
typedArray	73262648.0 Ops/sec
array	66810896.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches when accessing elements in an array or typed array:

1. **Simple Array**: Using a regular JavaScript array (`[]`).
2. **Typed Array**: Using a typed array, specifically `Int32Array`, which is a binary data type that provides better performance and memory efficiency.

**Options Compared:**
The benchmark compares the execution time of two test cases:

1. **typedArray**: Accessing elements in a typed array using integer indexing (`typedArray[i]`).
2. **array**: Accessing elements in a simple array using integer indexing (`array[i]`).

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Typed Array (typedArray)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides better performance due to its binary data type, which reduces the number of memory allocations and copies.
		- Can be more efficient for large datasets.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a specific library or module to create (e.g., `Int32Array` in this case).
		- May not work with all types of data or operations.
* **Simple Array (array)**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to use and understand, as it's a standard JavaScript data type.
		- Works with most types of data and operations.
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than typed arrays due to the overhead of dynamic typing and memory allocation.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, the `Int32Array` library is used to create a typed array. This library provides an efficient way to work with binary data in JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
None mentioned explicitly in the provided code, but it's worth noting that the use of typed arrays and integer indexing (`typedArray[i]`) requires some basic understanding of JavaScript arrays and their underlying mechanics.

**Other Alternatives:**

* Other typed array types (e.g., `Float32Array`, `Uint8Array`, etc.) could be used in similar benchmarks to compare their performance.
* Using native WebAssembly or NativeModules for optimized arrays and memory access.
* Implementing custom array data structures or algorithms for optimal performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, requirements, and constraints. This benchmark provides a basic comparison between typed arrays and simple arrays, but there are many other factors to consider when optimizing JavaScript performance.

Related benchmarks:

Get and set in typed array vs simple array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: typedArray vs array

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

typedArray

array

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):